Les Beaux Esprits Se Rencontrent

(Which May Be Interpreted Roughly as: Birds of a Feather Flock Together)

InJune 1902 the much-vaunted minimum agrarian programme of our
      Socialist-Revolutionaries (co-operatives and socialisation) enriched
      Russian socialist thought and the Russian revolutionary movement. The
      German book,Socialism and Agriculture, by Eduard David, the
      well-known opportunist (and Bernsteinite), appeared in February
      1903. There can evidently be no question of the consequent product of
      opportunist thought including the original of the earlier
      “Socialist-Revolutionary” mental gymnastics. If that is so,
      how is one to explain the amazing, the striking similarity and even the
      identity of principles in the programme of the Russian
      Socialist-Revolutionaries and that of the German opportunists? Is it not
      perhaps a case ofRevolutsionnaya Rossiyabeing the
      “original,” while David’s “fundamental” (according to a
      review inRusskiye Vedomosti) work is the copy? Two basic ideas,
      and, correspondingly, two main points in the programme, run through the
      pattern of David’s “work.” He glorifies agricultural co-operatives,
      expecting all possible blessings from them, demanding that the
      Social-Democrats help develop them, and (just like our
      Socialist-Revolutionaries) failing to see the bourgeois nature of these
      alliances between petty proprietors and agrarian capitalists, big and
      small. David demands the conversion of large farms into small ones, and
      waxes enthusiastic over the profitableness and efficiency, the thrifty
      management and productivity of the farms“des
      Arbeitsbauern”—literally, “of the working
      peasant”—emphasising the society’s supreme right to landed propertyand the right of these same small “working peasants” to the
      use of the land. Without any doubt, this German opportunist has
      plagiarised from the Russian “Socialist-Revolutionaries”! Of course
      neither the German petty-bourgeois opportunist nor the Russian
      petty-bourgeois, the “Socialist-Revolutionaries,” see anything at
      all of the petty-bourgeois nature of the “working peasant” in
      present-day society, his intermediate, transitional position between the
      bourgeoisie and the proletariat, his ambition to “make his way in
      the world” (i.e., become a full-fledged bourgeois) through
      frugality, diligence, semi-starvation, and excessive labour, and his
      striving to exploit the labour of rural “workers.”

Yes,indeed,les beaux esprits se rencontrent, and herein lies
      the key to a puzzle which at first glance seems so difficult: to determine
      which is the copy and which the original. Ideas expressing the needs,
      interests, strivings, and aspirations of a certain class are in the very
      air, and their identity cannot be concealed by any differences of garb, by
      any variations of opportunist or “Socialist-Revolutionary”
      phraseology. Murder will out.

Inall the countries of Europe, Russia included, the petty bourgeoisie is
      steadily being “thrust to the wall” and falling into decline,
      a process which does not always express itself in the outright and direct
      elimination of the petty bourgeoisie, but in most cases leads to a
      reduction of its role in economic life, to deterioration of its living
      conditions, and greater insecurity. Everything militates against it:
      technical progress in big industrial and agricultural enterprises, the
      development of the big shops, the growth of manufacturers’ associations,
      cartels and trusts, and even the growth of consumers’ societies and
      municipal enterprises. And, while the petty bourgeoisie is being
      “thrust to the wall” in the sphere of agriculture and
      industry, a “new middle social-estate,” as the Germans say, is
      emerging and developing, a new stratum of the petty bourgeoisie, the
      intelligentsia, who are also finding life in capitalist society harder and
      harder and for the most part regard this society from the viewpoint of the
      small producer. It is quite natural that this must inevitably lead to
      widespread dissemination and constant revival of petty-bourgeois ideas and
      doctrines in the most varied forms. It is quite natural that the Russian
      “Socialist-Revolutionaries,” who are wholly in thrall to the ideas of petty-bourgeois
      Narodism, inevitably turn out to be “birds of a feather” with
      the European reformists and opportunists, who, when they would be
      consistent, inevitably arrive at Proudhonism. And this was the very term
      that Kautsky quite justly used to describe David’s programme and stand
      point.

Wehave said, “when they would be consistent,” and this brings us to
      an essential feature—one that distinguishes the present-day
      Socialist-Revolutionaries from both the old Russian Narodniks and at least
      some of the European opportunists—which can only be called
      adventurism. Adventurism is not concerned with consistency, but endeavours
      to grasp at the fleeting opportunity and make use of the battle of ideas
      in order to justify and preserve its ideological poverty. The old Russian
      Narodniks wanted to be consistent and they upheld, preached, and professed
      their own, distinct programme. David wants to be consistent and rises up
      resolutely against the whole “Marxist agrarian theory,” emphatically
      preaches and professes the conversion of large farms into small farms,
      and, at least, has the courage of his convictions, and is not afraid to
      come out openly as the champion of small-scale farming. Our
      Socialist-Revolutionaries are, to put it as mildly as possible, far more
      “prudent.” They never rise up resolutely against Marx—God
      forbid! On the contrary, they come forward with quotations plucked at
      random from Marx and Engels, assuring us with tears in their eyes that
      they agree with the latteralmostin every thing. They do not
      come out against Liebknecht and Kautsky—on the contrary, they are
      profoundly and sincerely convinced that Liebknecht was a
      Socialist-Revolutionary—in very truth, a
      Socialist-Revolutionary. They do not come forward as the champions of
      small-scale farming on principle—on the contrary, they are heart and
      soul for the “socialisation of the land,” and it is only by accident
      that they sometimes blurt out that this all-embracing Russo-Dutch
      socialisation can mean anything and everything: either the transference of
      the land to society, to be used by the working people (exactly as David
      puts it!), or simply the transference of the land to the peasants, or,
      finally, quite “simply” the addition of plots of land
      gratis....

OurSocialist-Revolutionaries’ “prudent” methods are so well
      known to us that we shall take the liberty, in conclusion, of giving them
      a piece of good advice.

Youhave obviously landed in a rather awkward situation, gentlemen. All
      along you have been assuring us that you have nothing in common either
      with the opportunism and reformism in the West, or with the
      petty-bourgeois sympathies for the “profitable” small-scale
      farming—and suddenly a book by an avowed opportunist and champion of
      small-scale farming appears, in which your
      “Socialist-Revolutionary” programme is “copied”
      with touching scrupulosity! An awkward situation indeed. But don’t let it
      distress you: there is an easy way out. All you have to do is ... to quote
      Kautsky.

Norshould the reader think that this is a slip on our part. Nothing of
      the sort. Kautsky comes out against the ProudhonistDavid—for
      this very reasonthe Socialist-Revolutionaries, who are in agreement
      with David, have to quote Kautsky just as they once quoted Engels. Take
      No. 14 ofRevolutsionnaya Rossiyaand there you will read on page
      seven that the Social-Democrats’ “change of tactics” with
      regard to the peasantry “was legitimised” (H) by one of the
      fathers of scientific socialism, by Engels—Engels, who took up arms
      against the French comrades that had changed their tactics! How can one
      prove this pettifogging statement? Quite simply. First, one must
      “quote” Engels’ words that he is absolutely on the side of the
      small peasant (and say nothing about the fact that this very thought is
      expressed in the programme of the Russian Social-Democrats, which calls on
      all the working people to come over to the side of the
      proletariat!). Secondly, one must say with regard to the
      “concessions to Bernsteinism” made by the French comrades who
      changed their tactics:“See Engels’ superb criticism of these
      concessions.”It is this selfsame tried method that we advise the
      Socialist-Revolutionary gentlemen to use now too. David’s book has
      legitimised the change in tactics on the agrarian question. One cannot but
      admit now that, with a programme of “co-operatives and
      socialisation,” it is possible to remain in the ranks of the
      Social-Democratic Party; only dogmatists and the orthodox can fail to see
      this. But, on the other hand, it must be admittedthat David, unlike the noble Socialist-Revolutionaries, makes some
      concessions to Bernsteinism.“See Kautsky’s superb criticism of
      these concessions.”

Indeed,gentlemen, try it. Perhaps something will come of it once more.